Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

If money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability. -- Henry Ford

National security has become a thing used to protect illusionary profits, rather than real people. The solution is obvious: If our government is making treaties without the consent of the governed, then we should convene congress in our respective states and vote to remove from the constitution the power of the Federal Congress to make treaties without the consent and approval of the state legislatures. Of course, with as soft as the population has gotten lately and so indifferent to the affairs of its government, such a call to action is all but futile...

Forcing the legality of gay marriage in Massachusetts (Mass. supreme court vs. majority of the state's voters, I believe.)
Possibly Prop 8 in California, depending on how that state's supreme court rules.

So, let me get this straight. Your take on democracy has no ability to counter a tyranny of the majority?

Here's a hint - just because a bunch of people vote for something doesn't mean they should get it. Otherwise we could probably just do away with the court system and have people vote on everything, instead.

"Tyranny of the majority" is exactly what democracy is. That's why the USA is a republic instead.

Please. Quit being pedantic and using a definition of democracy that dates back to Aristotle.

Actually, it's not even pedantry, it's just plain wrong. The definition of "democracy" is simply not "rule by the majority without any checks and balances" as everyone with the chorus "The U.S. is a republic not a democracy" seems to think.

Just in case the "tyranny of the majority" that is the English language doesn't convince you, I'll provide an appeal to authority for you. "Democracy" defined by the Oxford English Dictionary:

1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.

While you're trying to be trite and cute (and failing, I might add), the Civil War was indeed about federalism and state's rights.

Slavery just happened to be the lynch pin issue at the center of that debate.

As to the person you're responding to, it's true. History is written by the winners. We can go round and round on this but there's no FEDERAL constitutional law regarding secession. In fact, if you interpret the 10th Amendment the way MOST people interpret it, that's a power reserved to the states because it's not explicitly listed as a power of the federal government.

I'm born and bred deep south. That doesn't make me an idiot or some sort of "war of northern aggression" idiot but to call something revisionism without evidence is pretty silly.

First of all, I resent that you accused me of being a Confederate sympathizer, and that you imply that all such people support slavery. Yes, I support states' rights (and I only coincidentally happen to be a Southerner), but I also support civil rights!

Second, the Civil War was about both slavery and states' rights. In fact, the most unfortunate thing about it was that abolition was allowed to become an excuse to trample over the Tenth Amendment, in essentially the same way that things like drugs and kiddie porn are giving government excuses to destroy other parts of the Bill of Rights today.

You have it the wrong way around. The real issue was indeed slavery. Federalism and States rights were just a legal smoke screen used by Southern politicians (and afterwords by Southern historians embarrassed by "the peculiar institution") to justify their desire to preserve slavery in the South and even expand slavery into the Western territories. One simple proof of this is that areas in the South without significant slave populations (e.g. West VA and East TN) voted overwhelmingly to stay in the Union. I

My contention was with certain idiots who, whenever secession or the Civil War is mentioned feel the need to jump in with the opinion that they "were not about slavery" when, according to each state's explicitly written Articles of Secession, they most certainly were.

Perhaps the best way to put it is that the secession was about slavery, but the war was about opposing secession.

I cannot lay my hand on any part of the Constitution that forbids states from voting to leave. If a state may enter the U.S. or the European Union whenever they desire, then a state may also leave whenever they desire.

In fact, that's how the U.S. was formed in the first place (the 13 states seceded from the United Kingdom).

Prop 8 was nothing more than an initiative by the Mormon church to use it's influence illegally for political means. The thing should be revoked.

Wait, what? How is a ballot initiative, passed by a clear majority of voters, a secret Mormon conspiracy all of the sudden? This wasn't something that elected representatives took it on themselves to do, perhaps in opposition to the will of the people, thanks to the deep pockects of the Secret Mormon Conspiracy(TM). This was simply a measure that the people liked.

Seriously, about 2/3s of the American public are against gay "marriage". About 2/3s are for it if you don't call it "marriage". This isn't exactly rocket science, folks. If progressives were more interested in results than talking points, this would be a dead issue.

I hear Cali is getting their act together on this, and we may see the model for other states, and the Fed govet, to follow, with a proposition to replace "marriage" with "domestic partnership" (I think) throughout Cali law, getting the government entirely out of the business of defining "marriage". About time, too.

There was widespread disagreement over the war, but for the most part people couldn't muster up any dander against their government. I'm sure that without the war and the draft the boomers would never have gotten a rep as anti-establishmentarians.

But the most recent time I can think of was the Civil War, which certainly wasn't recent.

There was a grassroots effort in the 80s to pass what was called the Equal Opportunity Amendment. It was approved by somewhat more than 20 states before being killed by the National Organization of Women, who were outraged that the special rights of women would be stripped away in favor of the equal rights of all. The amendment, essentially, made legal distinctions between men and women illegal. A side-effect not noted at the time but since undoubtedly got noticed: If men and women cannot be legally distinguished from one another, all marriages are "civil unions". It's funny how in this country, special rights have become more important than equal rights. Every minority must now have their own special power, rather than everyone having equal power. -_- Our founding fathers would cry if they were alive today to see how far we've fallen from the path of justice and equality.

...all marriages are "civil unions"
Government really should not be involved with religious sacraments and marriage is a religious sacrament. Legal benefits of "civil unions" can be more simply handled by designation.

Marriage has some level of religious significance but that doesn't mean it's a solely religious union. Afterall, many atheists still get married despite having no religious beliefs whatsoever. Arguing for "civil unions" is kinda pointless IMHO. Marriage can be defined to be acceptable between homosexual couples if they wish. On the flip side, if the government so chose a civil union could be legislated to be only legal between a man and a woman.

> Essentially, you're wanting to legislate a change in terminology, which is simply a waste of> tax dollars and something that the general public will fight kicking and screaming.

Not at all.

This whole "gay marriage mess" is a side effect of the fact that the US Government hasdecided to meddle in something that EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET views as a primarilyreligious matter. So public policy gets conflated with religious doctrine.

This is why polygamy is banned in the US when it really shouldn't be.

The Puritans in Boston shouldn't get to bully around people in entirely different states.

First it was inter-denominational marriages.Then it was inter-faith marriages.Then it was inter-racial marriages.

Every time, it's the same mess because the secular government failedto do what it was supposed to to begin with.

Let the Pope decide what a sacrament should be and keep any hint ofsacrament out of what the government does.

This whole "gay marriage mess" is a side effect of the fact that the US Government has
decided to meddle in something that EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET views as a primarily
religious matter.

Well, except for all of us who consider it to be, first and foremost, a personal commitment between two individuals.

Of course, neither that, nor your religious idea, have anything to do with the origins of marriage. It was a civil institution first. Basically, it existed to secure property rights and guarantee bloodlines. Then, somewhere along the way, people got it into their heads that if they're going to marry, they should marry someone they actually, you know, kind of like. So the idea of romantic love got injected into the mix. Then, further on down the road, the churches decided that they should have a role in all of this, so they injected a religious element to it. Then, much later on, people like you started thinking that marriage is entirely a religious institution, and that the rest of us (gays, atheists, etc) should just stay away from "your" sacrament.

Let the Pope decide what a sacrament should be and keep any hint of sacrament out of what the government does.

Oh, so now you want to prevent non-Catholics from getting married, too?

I'm sorry, this whole "marriage belongs to the church and the rest of you can fuck off" idea is just complete bullshit. I say keep marriage as a civil institution, open to all — gay, straight, theist, atheist, black, white, whatever — and let churches perform their own "spiritual unions" instead.

I think both of you are aiming for the same result, which is to remove the government's ability to restrict marriage, you're just disagreeing on which side (religion or government) gets to keep the term "marriage". Personally, I think a person should be able to designate anyone they want as the one that has the legal rights and responsibilities that are currently involved in marriages. Think of it as being the same as those "In case of emergency, contact..." forms you have to fill out for schools, camps, et

Government really should not be involved with religious sacraments and marriage is a religious sacrament.

Actually, marriage existed as a civil institution long before religion stuck its nose into it.

Perhaps what would be better would be for marriage to remain in the civil realm, thus avoiding any religious influence on who can marry whom, and instead allow religious institutes to perform "spiritual unions".

It is very hard to be able to establish a true date on the first marriages although the Old Testament in the Bible does mention a little about marriage as it was considered a family and household affair...there is no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher or priest being present at this union.

There were Romans who were very wealthy who would sign documents consisting of listing property rights and letting all know that they wanted this union to be legalized and not to be thought of as a common law marriage. Thus this began the official recording of marriages as we do today. Roman men could dissolve the marriage any time as it was a male privilege, not one accorded to females.

In A.D. 527-565 during the rein of Justinian lawyers drew up laws called the Justinian Code and this was a regulation of their daily life including marriage. Up until the time of the Justinian Code just saying you were married was enough.

Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.

Whilst I disagree with certain aspects of affirmative action I think you'd have to be barmy to think men and women should legally be treated exactly the same. Men and women are different and the law should respect those differences.

Admittedly those differences are tied to (what should be) relatively minor things like women being generally smaller and needing more maternity leave than fathers need paternity leave due to having to actually carry to term and give birth but those differences do exist.

The law should respect those differences because sometimes you need to treat people differently in order to treat them equally.

And just in case anyone thinks that's some Orwellian double-think consider this: A man where I work is allowed to leave five minutes early each day because he's in a wheelchair. If he didn't the three p.m. rush (early starts suck, early finishes ftw though!) would mean he'd be five minutes later leaving than everybody else which is thirty minutes a week. He didn't even ask for it, one of the bosses just noticed he was always last out and realised it was because it's impossible for him to navigate the corridors when they're full of people.

Why should he lose half an hour each week due to something he can't control? It's the little things like that which really make a difference.

Because not everyone arrives at exactly the same time, some people arrive up to fifteen minutes early (coffee & cigarette), some people arrive five or ten minutes early (coffee or cigarette) and some people arrive bang on time (me. First coffee is after an hour or two zoned out, Office Space style;) ). It's just because there's a surge of people in our building at exactly clocking off time; we love our work that much!

He didn't ask for it, it was just a nice thing done for him. I don't think he even car

Um, that is the law in the UK. He could technically have insisted on it under the Disability Discrimination Act but I doubt he even thought of it.

Firms in the UK have to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. This doesn't cost them anything directly because they can get a grant from an Access to Work advisor at the local job-centre. This isn't even a left wing law in this country as the DDA was passed by John Major's government in 1995 as it dovetails with the Tory idea that everyone should have t

Well, I was unaware that this was in the UK, and the citizens of the UK are welcome to govern themselves as they please. From my perspective in the US though, how does spending an extra 30 minutes a week filing yourself out of the building in any way impede your access to work? You can still work, and are not being discriminated against in that regard. I see that as arguing that anyone who lives 5 minutes further from work than the average of everyone else should be able to leave 5 minutes early. This i

From my perspective in the US though, how does spending an extra 30 minutes a week filing yourself out of the building in any way impede your access to work? You can still work, and are not being discriminated against in that regard.

It doesn't. They noticed that it was causing him problems and VOLUNTARILY let him go earlier. That's just common-sense taking care of your employees. For example, my boss has a policy that if I need information from a client, he'll call. Works great for me, as I'm 70% deaf. Did I ask for this? Nope. Did I sue for this? Nope. Am I happy that I don't have to stress out the client by asking them to repeat themselves every two seconds? Delighted. Do I work harder for a boss that's willing to work with my disabi

Your description of the "Equal Opportunity Amendment" sounds like the Equal Rights Amendment. Except that the ERA was strongly supported by NOW. Additionally 35 states ratified the ERA (although 5 have rescinded their ratification before the deadline for ratification passed). Finally, the ERA window of opportunity was the 70s, not the 80s. Otherwise your post describes the Equal Rights Amendment.

First of all, as others pointed out, you must have meant the Equal Rights Amendment.

Second, I'm fairly certain that NOW was one of the main forces behind the ERA, and that it was conservative forces raising fears that the ERA would lead to mixed-sex public restrooms and public funding for abortions which managed to shoot it down.

In fact, now that I look, NOW's website appears to support the ERA, [now.org] so I have no idea where you're coming up with this stuff.

Yeah, and look what happened to those who had the balls in the 1860's. The south was invaded and occupied. Tens of thousands of protestors in the north were imprisoned or deported. And the bloodiest war in all of human history. Just because some states had a "call to action" in protest of Federal government policies.

I understand that your solution makes sense to you and perhaps to some others, but in reality it really is not that great of a solution, and it is certainly not obvious as you noted. Not only would that never happen, but the issues would quickly pile up and the situation spin out of control where uninformed people were voting and making decisions that they really have no business making.

I'm not a fan of big government or of having a small percentage of people making decisions that effect everyone else,

Umm, nobody said we'd be turning voting over to the great unwashed masses. Or for that matter, requiring every state to have a say on it. What I was suggesting was that the states merely have to ratify by majority vote any treaty with another country. And the only reason this is necessitated is because the federal government has expanded its powers to the point now where the entire union can be entered into a contract (treaty) with another country--where the member states provide the resources negotiated fo

Wasn't making treaties with foreign states one of the few things that Federal government is supposed to do according to the original interpretation of the U.S. Constitution? I had the impression that it was pretty much why it was there in the first place - and why the U.S. even exists as a single entity - because, for all the independence the states have (or had), in international affairs, they were always together; strength is unity, and all that.

And the only reason this is necessitated is because the federal government has expanded its powers to the point now where the entire union can be entered into a contract (treaty) with another country--where the member states provide the resources negotiated for said treaty, without any say or even knowledge of, the content of such a treaty. While in this case it could be merely copyright, what if it was a mutual defense pact with, say, Taiwan? China attacks Taiwan and suddenly we're at DEFCON 1 and calling up the national guard and reinstituting the draft -- based on a treaty the public knew nothing about. The magnitude is different, but the legal mechanics are unchanged.

By the way, here's another hypothetical situation. Let's say that the Feds want to sign a peace treaty with Iran. In your system, all states have to ratify it, and all do... except, say, Texas. And so there is no peace treaty, even though most people desired one - and note also that not accepting such a treaty when offered may in and of itself be considered a hostile act by another side, and have very serious repercussions.

As you can see, from an utilitarian perspective, it can go either way.

If money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability. -- Henry Ford

National security has become a thing used to protect illusionary profits, rather than real people. The solution is obvious: If our government is making treaties without the consent of the governed, then we should convene congress in our respective states and vote to remove from the constitution the power of the Federal Congress to make treaties without the consent and approval of the state legislatures. Of course, with as soft as the population has gotten lately and so indifferent to the affairs of its government, such a call to action is all but futile...

Perhaps you've been hearing the rumblings of secession of states again as of late? Because I have.

If our government is making treaties without the consent of the governed, then we should convene congress in our respective states and vote to remove from the constitution the power of the Federal Congress to make treaties without the consent and approval of the state legislatures.

the "Federal Congress" doesn't have the power to make treaties in any case, with or without the consent or approval of state legislatures.

While I agree with your sentiment about the need to rework the treaty ratification process, you are wrong about the process of amending the constitution. I suggest that you read up on the amending process.

There are two ways to change the constitution. First (and the only method that has been used) is by adopting an amendment to the constitution. It's an involved process where BOTH parts of the US senate must vote (possibly by a 2/3 vote, but I am not sure) to PROPOSE an amendment. Then the legislatures of 3/4 the states must approve the proposed amendment. Only when both steps are fulfilled can the amendment be added to the US constitution.

The second method is to form a second constitutional convention. The new constitution would have to be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures. The second option probably will never be used because it allows wholesale changes.

Also note that the president of the US or the supreme court have no role to play. For practical purposes, changing the constitution is unlikely to happen. Also note that it is very hard to change the constitution because that is what the founding fathers intended. I think your real gripe is about the secrecy. This can easily be changed by a simple law that tightens what can be classified as a national security issue.

Wait... Didn't Obama say he was all for transparency? How less transparent can you get that you can't even disclose a treaty about copyright without it being a matter of "national security". Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Wait... Didn't Obama say he was all for transparency? How less transparent can you get that you can't even disclose a treaty about copyright without it being a matter of "national security". Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Challenge the denial; have the media bump this question up to the whitehouse press secretary; demand an actual response from Obama.

Blaming Obama directly is probably a bit of a stretch in this regard. It is VERY UNLIKELY he had anything to do with the FOIA request.

The only contact he would normally have would be a general guidelines given to the associated Agency. The Agency still is the one who deals with FOIA requests.

While this is probably true in this case, you should be very, very careful lest this turns into a slippery slope. The notion of "good ruler, evil advisors/subordinates" is an ages-old excuse for all kinds of tyranny.

Obama is a politician, thus he is lying. You do not get to be president by being a nice honest guy. You get there by backroom dealing, manipulations of the facts, and old fashioned snake-oil salesmanship.

Generally speaking that is probably true. However, Gerald Ford [wikipedia.org], the only US President who was appointed rather than elected (yes, that is possible albeit highly unlikely in our system), was by all accounts a genuinely nice guy. Of course, he sort of "fell into" the office of President so perhaps he should be considered an odd exception rather than the rule.

National security exemptions should be abolished. Allowing the government to hide whatever it wants just by saying "national security" is extremely dangerous. You don't have to look farther than the Bush administration to see this. They used national security to cover up illegal actions, and sway the people into an unnecessary war. This war has cost us more lives and more money than any terrorist attack.

Abolish national security exemptions entirely. Open everything wide up. Yes, that might increase the threat slightly from external enemies. But it will dramatically decrease the threat from internal enemies, who are far more dangerous.

mptions entirely. Open everything wide up. Yes, that might increase the threat slightly from external enemies. But it will dramatically decrease the threat from internal enemies, who are far more dangerous.

So you think the DoD should grant FOIA requests regarding where our ballistic missile submarines will be operating on a given date? Or regarding the launch codes to our nukes? Or our specific plans for where and when to raid Al Quaeda hideouts in Afghanistan?

I propose something more limited, such as having the SCOTUS review any and all claims of national security.

What's more appalling about this is the official reason for said exception has no need to exist. Something that we've heard very little of in the past eight years when being denied information is that it's classified. Lest it's changed since I was in the service, the government has eight different types of classified that covers every possible legitimate reason to withhold information from the public. Any reason the government gives for withhold information that doesn't have classified in the sentences i

I think Obama has found a lot about how much power other people have in Washington in the past couple of months. He seems sincere about his desire to change things but change isn't going to come from one person.

I think you're kidding yourself if you think that Obama really isn't the same as any other politician, even after he's shown us several times that all his talk of change was bullshit. As several others have said already: meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

He's only been in office for a 2 month! How much could he do/not do in 8 weeks? Not very much.

He's responsible for every decision that has been made in the past 8 weeks. I'm a fair man, and I'm willing to say that processes that were in place as he took office aren't his fault... but that doesn't sound like it was the case here at all.

The whole "Obama has broken his promises" thing is basically nothing but something Republicans babble about because they are sore losers.

No, it's the truth. He broke his promises before he took office (see: promises about the FISA bill, which turned out to be bullshit when they weren't politically convenient for him any more), and he's breaking them now.

Furthermore, attempting to polarize this matter into "omg Republicans vs Democrats" is naive of you, at best. I've already seen people who were happy Obama won, who have renounced their support after seeing what he's done so far in office. Not everything is about some stupid bullshit party allegiance.

I think Obama has found a lot about how much power other people have in Washington in the past couple of months. He seems sincere about his desire to change things but change isn't going to come from one person.

I think Obama knew all along how much power others have in Washington. He knew it wouldn't happen overnight.

I think Obama has found a lot about how much power other people have in Washington in the past couple of months. He seems sincere about his desire to change things but change isn't going to come from one person.

The keyword here being "seems". When will the average voter stop judging by appearances, and instead look at who is behind the pretty marionette, pulling the strings? That people are even surprised when a new president turns out to not live up to the perceived promises is what surprises me.

I think Obama has found a lot about how much power other people have in Washington in the past couple of months. He seems sincere about his desire to change things but change isn't going to come from one person.

I voted for Obama. I think he's a good person in a lot of ways. But I don't think that he can possibly live up to the "he'll change everything that I personally object to" idea that so many people had. Obama shares my (and your) views in some ways but not in others. Likely in a lot of cases, for instance copyright violations, he doesn't care much one way or another so he's not going to change anything.

If you want to get things changed you should use one of the lessons taught by Obama's campaign - get wi

FYI, ACTA is much more than a "Copyright" treaty. I wish that's all it were about, but the "C" in ACTA stands for "Counterfeiting". There's been a recent rash of seizures [ip-watch.org] of legitimately produced generic drugs in the Netherlands, all on concerns about "counterfeiting." The pushing through of ACTA is likely only to make this sort of nonsense worse, and the effect on people's lives is real.

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

may not have anything to do with this. His calling for transparency doesn't mean that every request for information comes across his desk. I'm sure that there is a lot of Bush-era cruft that is yet to be uncovered and rectified.

That said, take a look at this page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

Specifically the part about ISP Cooperation"ISP cooperation

The leaked document includes a provision to force Internet service providers to provide information about suspected copyright infringers without a warrant, making it easier for the record industry to sue music file sharers and for officials to shut down non-commercial BitTorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay."

More people truly need to be informed about this. I personally think conducting this act in secrecy says all I need to know about it. It should be protested against and voted against.

Bill, that is. And yes, its his fault. Check out EO 12958 from 4/17/95:

Section 1.1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) "National security" means the national defense or foreign relations of the United States.(l) "Damage to the national security" means harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States from the unauthorized disclosure of information, to include the sensitivity, value, and utility of that information.

It is not unusual for treaty negotiations to be secret. This is more common than you seem to think.

These are working sessions, and getting a zillion people ranting and raving about a casual word or phrase here or there is counter productive.

When submitted to The Senate for approval there will be no secret codicils attached and the written word will be available to all. Write you Senator and get on the list to be notified when the issue comes before them.

Poor choice of denial reasons? Perhaps. But don't go all conspiracy nut on the issue till you see the work product.

Actually, pushing back is a good idea. In the last week, I have contacting my senators and congress woman concerning legislation that might make it difficult to have community and personal gardens (House and Senate bills HR 875 and S 425). I also contacted my congress woman to ask her to support Ron Paul's bills to add transparency to the Federal Reserve.

One thing that disappoints me about my family and friends: they never seem to want to take the time to talk to their representatives about important issues.

Which isn't entirely untrue. ACS (Automated Case System) which is their current case-management system, is woefully obsolete. The VCF (Virtual Case File) that was to be implemented as its replacement was a classic example of project management failure and was scrapped after spending $170 Million taxpayer dollars on it. Now they are developing the Sentinel system that was supposed to cost $450 Million and be completed by December 2009, but, best estimates now say that it